Team9nine

A couple old patches I picked up recently for a vintage tackle display in the office...

The last time I bought a bunch of inexpensive LC Pointers off eBay (believe they were $8-$10 ea.), it turned out that none of them suspended - they were all floaters. Took a lot of weight adjustments to get them to suspend, too. Been long enough that I honestly don’t remember the seller. I’m sure you’re fine in this instance based on the comments above, but the post details just caught my attention.

Yes, feeling bites and yes, feeling bottom, but just as important as both of those is a third factor, maybe a hybrid of the two above points - feeling your bait. Often termed as "weighing your bait." The better in touch you are with your bait, the better your ability to interpret both bottom and bites.

I would say it's not over rated, but it does need to be kept in proper perspective. There are some presentations and techniques where it's very important, and some where it isn't. Additionally, there is always a balance of factors involved, because other factors like casting ability and playing fish are equally important and come into play. Sometimes the most sensitive rods don't have the best attributes to match the other qualities you might want. There are almost always trade-offs.

Might be a while to see final numbers, if they become available. I've pulled it for a lot of the older events, but I do have first round numbers (Day 1 and Day 1, Group A & B to compare: Here's what the top 10 in each group would look like if anglers were credited only with the weight of their best five fish: GROUP A 1. Randall Tharp: 22-09 2. Zack Birge: 21-09 3. Ish Monroe: 21-08 4. Ott DeFoe: 18-11 5. Mark Daniels Jr.: 16-12 6. Randy Howell: 16-08 7. Gerald Spohrer: 16-01 8. Takahiro Omori: 15-08 9. Matt Lee: 14-12 10. Dave Lefebre: 14-00 Day 1 Actual Standings Group A 1. Randy Howell -- 26, 49-12 2. Ish Monroe -- 15, 40-13 3. Zack Birge -- 15, 36-09 4. Gerald Spohrer -- 17, 35-04 5. Ott DeFoe -- 14, 34-14 6. Brandon Coulter -- 17, 32-05 7. Randall Tharp -- 9, 28-11 8. Dave Lefebre -- 15, 26-06 9. Mark Davis -- 15, 24-03 10. Jacob Wheeler -- 11, 23-09 11. Mark Daniels -- 8, 20-13 12. Takahiro Omori -- 8, 19-12 13. Greg Vinson -- 12, 18-13 14. Chris Lane -- 10, 18-00 15. Matt Lee -- 7, 17-15 16. Jordan Lee -- 9, 17-05 17. Russ Lane -- 7, 16-01 18. Michael Neal -- 8, 13-14 19. Jared Lintner -- 8, 13-13 20. Stephen Browning -- 10, 13-00 21. Casey Ashley -- 6, 13-00 22. Gary Klein -- 8, 12-14 23. Roy Hawk -- 5, 12-12 24. Edwin Evers -- 8, 11-00 25. Brett Hite -- 8, 10-13 26. Cody Meyer -- 5, 10-03 27. Andy Morgan -- 8, 9-14 28. Tim Horton -- 6, 9-04 29. James Watson -- 6, 9-00 30. Jason Lambert -- 4, 7-00 31. David Walker -- 3, 6-04 32. Fred Roumbanis -- 4, 5-12 33. Tommy Biffle -- 2, 4-03 34. Mike McClelland -- 3, 4-00 35. Keith Poche -- 3, 3-14 36. Kelly Jordon -- 2, 3-13 37. James Elam -- 3, 3-04 38. Shin Fukae -- 2, 2-06 39. Andy Montgomery -- 1, 1-14 40. Justin Lucas -- 1, 1-06 GROUP B (Best 5) 1. Greg Hackney: 19-12 2. Jason Christie: 18-14 3. Alton Jones Jr.: 18-05 4. Terry Scroggins: 17-00 5. Aaron Martens: 16-03 6. John Murray: 15-14 7. Brandon Palaniuk: 15-05 8 (tie). Anthony Gagliardi: 14-11 8 (tie). Jonathon VanDam: 14-11 10. Adrian Avena: 14-00 Day 2 Actual Results Group B 1. Marty Robinson -- 34, 56-00 2. Anthony Gagliardi -- 20, 41-14 3. Jacob Powroznik -- 20, 33-08 4. Greg Hackney -- 14, 31-06 5. Alton Jones -- 17, 30-01 6. Adrian Avena -- 14, 30-01 7. Fletcher Shryock -- 20, 30-00 8. Jason Christie -- 12, 29-00 9. Aaron Martens -- 13, 27-15 10. Jonathon VanDam -- 13, 26-02 11. Alton Jones Jr -- 9, 24-10 12. Wesley Strader -- 13, 23-05 13. Mike Iaconelli -- 14, 22-11 14. Terry Scroggins -- 9, 22-04 15. John Murray -- 9, 21-05 16. Todd Faircloth -- 14, 20-14 17. Bobby Lane -- 13, 20-06 18. Brent Ehrler -- 11, 18-14 19. Bradley Roy -- 9, 18-13 20. Gerald Swindle -- 11, 18-04 21. Jeff Sprague -- 8, 16-03 22. Brandon Palaniuk -- 5, 15-05 23. Jesse Wiggins -- 10, 15-01 24. Mark Rose -- 8, 15-01 25. Shaw Grigsby -- 8, 13-07 26. Kevin VanDam -- 6, 12-00 27. Luke Clausen -- 7, 11-09 28. Brent Chapman -- 4, 7-04 29. Dean Rojas -- 4, 6-12 30. Dustin Connell -- 5, 6-01 31. Paul Elias -- 3, 5-12 32. Skeet Reese -- 4, 5-01 33. Cliff Pace -- 4, 4-11 34. Cliff Crochet -- 2, 4-10 35. Scott Suggs -- 3, 4-08 36. Justin Atkins -- 2, 2-14 37. Britt Myers -- 2, 2-11 38. Jeff Kriet -- 1, 2-07 39. Josh Bertrand -- 2, 2-04 40. Boyd Duckett -- 1, 2-02

The other thing to consider is if you can't do the mods yourself, you likely won't get a reputable shop to do them either. The liability risk is too great.

As others have suggested, you have to do what works best for you, whatever that is. As for Clunn, he's still doing the same 1 rod/reel concept that he started nearly 20 years ago.

You know the areas you'll be fishing best, and what setup might be optimal under those conditions, but for me, it's split rings and matching #6 Gammi round bends in most cases (traditional 1/4 - 5/8 oz size baits).

Great observation. Never been a fan of x-fast, and certainly haven't jumped on that bandwagon despite everything seeming to be going that way in the recent past. Think I now only own 1 rod I would classify as such. It's fun to fish with, but a good mod-fast is just so versatile and accommodating.

For simplicity sake, if we just figure that there are 8-10 tourneys a year depending on qualifying for championships, etc., anyone with around 50 or so FLW events would likely have at least 5 years of FLW tour events under their belts. Using that as the guideline, and just looking at the 40 guys fishing today in the knockout round, you end up with the following: Name (# FLW events fished) Sprague (84) Hite (95) Gagliardi (203) Robinson (67) Omori (97) Iaconelli (65) MDJ (46) Montgomery (104) Hackney (102) Aveena (50) Defoe (95) Ish (102) Ehrler (104) Tharp (130) Wheeler (49) Lefebre (195) Swindle (53) Neal (94) Jones (45) B. Lane (94) Poroznik (168) Christie (143) Coulter (71) Martens (48) C. Lane (54) Jordon (61) That's 26 of the 40 or 65% of the field. Not sure how that would change when you add the other 40 into the mix, but I bet it would still be close to half.

It was a deliberate attempt to take down BASS, not an effort to get the best anglers in the world all on one playing field. Only after they had some turn downs from the original invites did a few more FLW anglers get brought on. There was a time when FLW "owned" BASS, and they were just a single acquisition and decision away from being "THE" professional bass fishing circuit. There was also a period of time when most pros fished both circuits, and the world was a much happier (or at least less divided) place. EDIT: what do you mean by experience vs no experience? There are only a handful of guys fishing today from that 40 that have not fished an FLW event. Most have 5 years or more of FLW events under their belt.

I don't think it's quite as easily distinguishable as FLW guys vs BASS guys. With just a couple exceptions, nearly everyone in the 40 man knockout round fishing today has an extensive FLW resume. Combined, the 40 guys fishing have over 2500+ FLW events under their belts and over $10 million in FLW winnings. Which side they came from when the BPT roster was announced isn't a fair way to judge IMO due to the politics involved in the selection process. You could also argue the same in regards to past history within the sport going back to the Erwin Jacobs days. That said, I don't disagree with the general opinion that seems to prevail considering FLW as a less stout field in general and a feeder for BASS, but it's hard to compare 'apples to apples' IMO.

I think I'm closest to A-Jay in approaches mentioned. All fluoro on baitcasters with just 1 or 2 exceptions. I've got very little use for braid on them. However, I'm nearly all braid on spinning. A couple other thoughts. The knot issue with fluoro is not all encompassing. There are fluoro lines with as good or better knot strength than mono (nylon). They are the only ones I use. Also, if you are using straight braid, you are definitely getting a different presentation in many cases (vs straight mono/fluoro or braid with leader) that can affect the bite, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. It's why I don't go straight braid very often even when using it.

Yes - well worth it. Only took one day with a temperamental 9.9 rope start to convince me. Traded it the next week for a new electric start 9.9 with small alternator and never looked back. Ran that setup on a customized jon boat for 8 years without a hitch. Might have been the best $400 I ever spent ?

They're all subject to polygraph and their no info rules are pretty straightforward. Not sure any of them would risk their professional careers on trying to get through a single round in any one event...but, you never know. Nothing is 100% enforceable with a no info rule. I'm not too worried about it, though.

A lot of new info restrictions have been put into place. They were covered on another popular bass fishing news site last week. Short answer - Anglers not fishing on a certain day won't be watching live coverage.

The fish are probably not picky enough, but I am Use whatever you feel most comfortable with. For me, it's fluoro all day, every day.

I say that because you need to keep in mind that when MLF started, there were no penalties for fish handling violations. TV growth was the main objective, and Duckett even stated, "We're trying to build a sports product...This isn't about bass, and it isn't about a crankbait." Fish handling violations came later (2013) and have been tweaked and added over the years. As for the study, visit my website (link is in my profile). It's on the first page still, but I've also covered livewell damage recently and other stuff. Click the 'science' category link to see only science related posts.

That rig, along with a 3-way rig as used for walleyes, is designed to keep the bait up off the bottom and to avoid snagging (of the bait). It is primarily used in either river situations where you have a constant current, or with presentations like the spinner rig depicted where you are basically slow trolling, moving the boat constantly. In a typical bass fishing situation, you would never move that fast. As such, I don't necessarily see any benefit to using such a rig, plus in a cast and retrieve scenario, you might have the added negative of the lead weight on the dropper line wrapping and tangling with the main lure line. I would think a Carolina/mojo/splitshot setup might be better in most instances for bass.

My take on the penalties is that they are there primarily to convey that this MLF is a "sport" just like most any other you would watch on TV, with penalties for certain rules violations. It's what people are used to seeing/watching, and having "refs" and penalties suggests this format/event/sport is on the same level or playing field as other sports. Fish handling just happens to be an easy thing to target with the side benefit of appearing to be better for the fish. As for the carpet thing, there is recent research that suggests specifically for bass, the concern/danger might be overblown. That said, I personally still like the penalty being assessed.

There is some really cool research being done in the area of wake tracking and hydrodynamic imaging in fish. A lot yet to be learned there, but the only angler I've seen discuss the subject is Clunn. There's a whole world yet to discovered and unraveled in this regard, especially concerning largemouth bass and lure design. From one of those papers: Wake height and the lateral distance between vortices correspond to the size of the tail fin and thus of the fish. The specific structure of the wake provides information about swimming style. The sense of rotation and travelling direction of the vortices and the direction of the dragged water give information on swimming direction of the prey. A wake shows distinct structural changes when ageing. Thus the hydrodynamic structure could inform a predator if the creator of the wake is suitable prey (size, swimming speed), in which direction it went and if the wake is fresh enough to be worth following. We know that there are both hydrodynamic and chemical signatures left in the vortices of these wakes. We also know that in this regard, the lateral line is key in predators detecting and utilizing these wakes, much more so than the chemical/olfactory aspect. Some catfish have been proven to be able to track 1-2 inch long guppies in total darkness up to 10 seconds after they have passed, and from distances of 1-2 meters apart. As such, I think your observation and premise on the turbulence lures create and their importance to fish is spot on.

Yep, the loss of performance, casting ability, altered drag settings and relative gear ratio wouldn't justify keeping a full spool of braid on until you had almost nothing left. That is where Heartland's argument wins out in my analysis. Thanks for writing that up. However, if you started with a full spool of braid, and then when you lost a certain amount, I calculated 15 yds., you simply add a 15 yd backer (mono) to another reel, attach the braid and wind onto the new reel. You are now back to full spool with braid and have 135 yds to play with. Now, you simply keep repeating every time a reel loses 15 yds of braid, just adding that 15 yds to the next reel as the backer. So "reel 3" would be 30 yds of backer mono and then the remaining 120 yds of braid. Back to a full spool with plenty to play with. "reel 4", 45 yds of backer mono and 105 yds of braid. "Reel 5", 60 yds of mono backer and 90 yds of braid. Finally, "reel 6" is 75 yds of mono backer and 75 yards of remaining braid. Again, full spool of braid for the final time. Doing this, QUAKEnSHAKEs scenario easily wins out, as you could make a full spool of line last roughly 3X as long as cutting that spool into two halves to begin with.

USA Bassin has weekend tourneys on Cat, Coon, Flint and Waveland, all relatively close to you, along with weeknight jackpot tourneys on Cat and Coon.

Sounds like in your response to me, you are basically supporting my side of the argument. If bass aren't selectively choosing larger prey items, or selectively ignoring others, then the water displacement serves no purpose other than to guarantee feeding success, which is largely a primary function of lateral lines anyway. On the latter comment, I took it more along the lines of the big fat bass can't chase down fast prey as efficiently per previous posts more so than an absolute statement of bass conserving energy.